Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: AmbulanceDriver on August 28, 2009, 02:07:37 PM
-
http://www.keloland.com/NewsDetail6162.cfm?Id=0,89084
Essentially, folks in Nebraska are being "surprised" by the fact that the Cash for Clunkers rebates are taxable.
Umm, hello. It's money coming to you. Even though it's from the gov't, they still want their share. And I strongly suspect that not only is it taxable on the state level, but also on a fed level. As income. Whoopsie.
I have a feeling we're gonna see a lot of one year old used cars out on the lots next year....
-
HA HA !! ;/ ;/
-
There will be many more surprises before the Cash For Clunkers fiasco fades to a distant memory.
One dealership accountant I talked to says her particular dealership expects many repossessions of new vehicles in a few months. Her explanation was that those who traded in those clunkers really couldn't afford a new vehicle to begin with. =|
-
That whole scam is going to be a massive and expensive facepalm for the Obama administration.
-
Wow. Taxing tax money. What a shocker. That's like taxing social security.
-
Wow. Taxing tax money. What a shocker. That's like taxing social security.
Be quiet, or you'll give 'em more ideas.
-
Her explanation was that those who traded in those clunkers really couldn't afford a new vehicle to begin with.
That's one of the things I was figuring we'd see. Some aspects of this are really no different than, "here's a house you can't afford to keep".
-
Be quiet, or you'll give 'em more ideas.
You have clinton to thank for that one.
-
HA HA !! ;/ ;/
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thevancouverite.com%2Fpictures%2Fnelson-muntz.gif&hash=471e85e1d6477fe3edf3b7efc252151a9ee71965)
-
They're already taxing Social Security. I'm not sure the story is accurate on income tax on the clunker trade in. Government bought your clunker for $4500.00. No different than if you sold your lawnmower. Income neutral exchange. They got the clunker, you got the cash. No income.
What the deal is, is that most states that tax vehicle purchases charge a "sales" or "value" tax on the agreed upon sale price of the new vehicle before a trade in is deducted. IE: $30,000.00 vehicle price, 6% sales tax (Michigan) = $1800.00
Trade in a clunker - $4500.00 = $25,500.00. Sales tax is still $1800.00.
-
I was a little surprised when I learned I got taxed on my military pay when I was in. Another tax on tax revenue money. Sounds like double dipping to me. Then there's all the extra red tape and labor to implement said tax.
-
To make matters worse - if that's possible.
Dealerships are "holding" cars until the .gov coughs up the cash for the clunker. http://www.dealerrefresh.com/clunkers-cars-dealers-results/
Yup! You bought the new car, and plunked down either cash or a promisory note and left your clunker behind. And the dealer poured liquid glass into the crankcase and fused your engine parts into a bad sculpture. You have nothing to drive around in, but you owe that first payment right on time.
Do you think there might be a few folks who are looking for pitchforks and torches already?
Me, I'm gonna bring cases of marsmallows and sell them at a discount. I'm counting on tips to make up the difference.
stay safe.
skidmark
-
Is this logic correct, or is he missing some numbers?
(A comment submitted to today's Madison Capital Times)
A clunker that travels 12,000 miles a year at 15 mpg uses 800 gallons of gas a year.
A vehicle that travels 12,000 miles a year at 25 mpg uses 480 gallons a year.
So, the average Cash for Clunkers transaction will reduce US gasoline consumption by 320 gallons per year.
They claim 700,000 vehicles so that's 224 million gallons saved per year.
That equates to a bit over 5 million barrels of oil.
5 million barrels is about 5 hours worth of US consumption.
More importantly, 5 million barrels of oil at $70 per barrel costs about $350 million dollars
So, the government paid $3 billion of our tax dollars to save $350 million.
We spent $8.57 to for every dollar saved.
How good a deal was that ???
They'll probably do a great job with health care though!!
-
Gew-
I have no idea if that's true or not. But it's hilarious.
I can either by amused or depressed by the sheer (predictable) stupidity of our government. I figure it's better to just be amused at this point.
-
I don't know if it's true or not either, but the numbers sure sound right. And they didn't even calculate in the energy used to demolish the clunkers. If verified, I would really like to see this get some news time.
-
Gewehr - was cash for clunkers about saving oil? Or was it about moving vehicles off forecourts?
-
it was about "Where my free *expletive deleted*it"
-
It is more than that Gewehr98. The govt also loses the gas tax revenue for the that fuel that is "saved".
-
I'm just waiting for the repossession cycle to begin on new cars that the former clunker owners really couldn't afford to begin with.
Although, I'm sure somebody can put a positive White House spin on that, too. =|
-
Gewehr - was cash for clunkers about saving oil? Or was it about moving vehicles off forecourts?
If it was just about moving the vehicles off the lots, they wouldn't have put a restriction on what vehicles qualified. I'm sure there are plenty of people who could use a new pickup and would have used the rebate for that, and if someone wanted to get $4500 back on their $80K Mercedes, why not let them? That's $80K more out of the bank and into the economy, and if sold in a State that collects sales tax, an influx of tax revenue. Limiting it to "green" vehicles clearly made it about the environment just as much as stimulating car sales.
And stimulating car sales is debatable, because like G98, I'm waiting to see the repossessions begin. Not to mention the effect on car dealerships when the inevitable post-program lull in sales hits.
-
Not to mention the effect on car dealerships when the inevitable post-program lull in sales hits.
Already happening... (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090913/ap_on_bi_ge/us_life_after_clunkers)
-
Is this logic correct, or is he missing some numbers?
(A comment submitted to today's Madison Capital Times)
"We spent $8.57 to for every dollar saved."
Alternatively phrased, the program would be neutral if every person kept their car for eight and a half years. Assuming every car stays functional, said vehicles aren't replaced, no decreases in fuel efficiency, no decrease in fuel prices, zero additional administrative costs, if the program was funded out of revenue and not raised by borrowing, etc.
Essentially, it will take eight and a half years to balance cost transfer. But it's neutral from a semantic POV anyways. Just the money went to (theoretically) car companies instead of oil companies, minus administrative costs and such.
-
"We spent $8.57 to for every dollar saved."
Alternatively phrased, the program would be neutral if every person kept their car for eight and a half years. Assuming every car stays functional, said vehicles aren't replaced, no decreases in fuel efficiency, no decrease in fuel prices, zero additional administrative costs, if the program was funded out of revenue and not raised by borrowing, etc.
Essentially, it will take eight and a half years to balance cost transfer. But it's neutral from a semantic POV anyways. Just the money went to (theoretically) car companies instead of oil companies, minus administrative costs and such.
Actually it would take more than 8 1/2 years cause that money could be earning interest.
-
I'm just waiting for the repossession cycle to begin on new cars that the former clunker owners really couldn't afford to begin with.
Me, too....I may be in the market for a new ride by then.... =D
-
It's actually not quite so bad as that, either.
The original poster assumed 1 barrel of oil->42 gallons gasoline, that is, perfect conversion of crude to gas. This is not the case. Poking around for a few minutes, I found a link (http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/eng99/eng99288.htm) where someone asked what the conversion is, and it's suggested that it's about 20 gallons of gas per barrel of oil, plus other derivatives to make up the balance.
This suggests the amount saved per year is closer to $800 million, which makes the ratio closer to 4:1, or four years ownership of the new vehicle.
Of course, this ignores the various other costs and problems, such as the massive destruction of consumable goods, etc.
-
Is this logic correct, or is he missing some numbers?
Well, he's not taking into account the savings in oil consumption year after year. It seems like a rather short sighted analysis.
Of course, the only reason the energy savings was made part of the program is there's no way you could get it passed the more liberal Democrats without some kind of "green" angle on it. Hummers for Clunkers wouldn't sell well with a great many people.
If it was just about moving the vehicles off the lots, they wouldn't have put a restriction on what vehicles qualified. I'm sure there are plenty of people who could use a new pickup and would have used the rebate for that
You could get a new pickup truck under the deal but you'd probably only get $3500 under most circumstances. My old man turned in a beat-up Dodge Ram for a new Chevy Silverado work truck. To get the $3500 you only had to show a 4mpg increase in efficiency and like all the C4C deals the original car had to get less than 20mpg combined on highway and city driving.
And stimulating car sales is debatable, because like G98, I'm waiting to see the repossessions begin.
I'll be really surprised if we see massive repossessions spring up. The banks are handing out money willy-nilly these days. One would have hoped they learned their lesson with regards to handing out loans to unqualified people.
Anecdotal data: I know plenty of people that had qualifying cars but didn't cash in on the deal. The only people I know that did are myself and my father. I'm sure he paid cash for his remaining balance and owns it outright while I'm going to be paying mine off over the next few years with a minimum monthly payment that's tiny by my standards.
It's funny how one's own perception colors things I guess. On this board it's seen as cash for people too poor to buy a new car. On other segments of the web it's seen as cash for rich people that can afford a new car.
That's not to say I think the program was a good idea or anything. It was a nice little kick to the economy but we're just going to see new cars sales lag for a long time now. I, like my father, were planning on just running out old beaters into the ground, fixing them as needed, and probably buy a new vehicle in a year or two if the economy looked like it was getting better or at least not getting worse. This just pushed up the purchase date ahead of time and now neither of us will buy a vehicle in the next 5 years or so.
-
We saw a very nice, damned-near pristine, 2001 Chevy S-10 Blazer 4x4 with "Clunker" written on the windshield at my local GM dealer yesterday. It was so clean you could have eaten off of it.
I'd have gladly given them what the dealer gave the previous owners for that vehicle, in a heartbeat. Now they're gonna trash the 4.3L V-6 with Bon Ami dumped into the valve covers while running (or whatever the Federally-approved technique is) and scrap the vehicle, instead.
Nice, Obama. Really nice. :mad:
-
We saw a very nice, damned-near pristine, 2001 Chevy S-10 Blazer 4x4 with "Clunker" written on the windshield at my local GM dealer yesterday. It was so clean you could have eaten off of it.
I'd have gladly given them what the dealer gave the previous owners for that vehicle, in a heartbeat. Now they're gonna trash the 4.3L V-6 with Bon Ami dumped into the valve covers while running (or whatever the Federally-approved technique is) and scrap the vehicle, instead.
I saw plenty of good vehicles destined for the same fate. Good, clean pickup trucks w/o body damage, good running engines (until the silica compound went into it), etc. That's why I have zero sympathy for anyone who participated in this program and had difficulties because of it.
aholes.
-
I saw plenty of good vehicles destined for the same fate. Good, clean pickup trucks w/o body damage, good running engines (until the silica compound went into it), etc. That's why I have zero sympathy for anyone who participated in this program and had difficulties because of it.
aholes.
I don't have any hard feeling towards those who saw this program as economically advantageous and decided to take advantage of it. That's what capitalism is all about, from the end users perspective.
I DO have a problem that the program existed in the first place. I don't think tax dollars should fund this kind of tomfoolery. But, that's not the fault of those individuals that did what was in their best interest, that's the fault of the politicians. (Surprise)
-
I don't have any hard feeling towards those who saw this program as economically advantageous and decided to take advantage of it. That's what capitalism is all about, from the end users perspective.
I DO have a problem that the program existed in the first place. I don't think tax dollars should fund this kind of tomfoolery. But, that's not the fault of those individuals that did what was in their best interest, that's the fault of the politicians. (Surprise)
That.
If there's a pile of money sitting on the ground with a sign that reads "Free, Take Me", you'd be a fool not to take it. The fault lies with the moron who left the pile of money there in the first place, not the person who picked it up.
-
I think Avenger is talking about the people who probably shouldn't be buying a car right now anyways, and/or the Dealers who Uncle Sam has left holding the bag....
-
I am kinda in the market for a new pickup but after cruising the lots looking at what is out there, to replace my 96 F150 XLT with a like truck would cost me over 30000 bucks. That is way more car payment I would get into. Both of our trucks run just fine so we passed....chris3
-
I brought a pickup-load of scrap iron to the recycling place on Friday. All of the open space around the yard was covered with parked vehicles, all of which had "Clunker" on the windshield.
Some of these were nice-looking rides. One, in particular, caught my eye: a nice Chevy AWD Astro van. The body was in fine shape but, of course, I have no idea how mechanically sound it was. Also there was a late 80s orearly 90s Dodge Ram pickup. Again, a nice-looking truck. These were hardly the only ones. Some really decent used cars - affordable used cars - went to the smelter, instead of providing years of inexpensive driving for someone.
A shame, I think.
jb
-
Local GM dealership - all "clunkers", and the dealer told me they're already allocated to the nearby scrap yard, vs. being sold to people waving cash in hand. I asked specifically about the 2001-2002 silver S-10 Blazer, and the two late-model Dodge pickups.
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmauser98.com%2FSSPX0098.jpg&hash=3373ab21594ab1df2c35d3d7f3e47a08cc504887)
Good-looking Explorer:
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmauser98.com%2FSSPX0099.jpg&hash=d51b4f04aa4db995981d11116bf23fff24f7d4df)
Buick sedan and another late-model S-10 Blazer:
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmauser98.com%2FSSPX0100.jpg&hash=c6165406abc8f1bc8c408b15875a2b7be18f90d3)
Dodge pickups, and yet another S-10 Blazer:
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmauser98.com%2FSSPX0101.jpg&hash=86d6667b9586ada78a1a9623c620e791a5f6d7cf)
Jeep Cherokee and one more S-10 Blazer:
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmauser98.com%2FSSPX0103.jpg&hash=0cf59d382a081f8781d7cf7839f2947e03395253)
-
G98, that breaks my heart.
One, in particular, caught my eye: a nice Chevy AWD Astro van.
Those are excellent vehicles...we ran one to 636K miles.
-
Cash for Clunkers = Colossal Waste
-
Yeah, but we can all get rich by destroying valuable assets. Didn't you hear them say so on the Tee Vee?
-
Almost every one of those vehicles pictures is nicer than any car or truck I have ever owned. I had to take out a small personal loan to purchase an older pickup last fall and would love to have seen any of those on the used market. I can promise you that in 4 months of searching I never found a single truck as nice as those <200k miles for $3500 or less anywhere in central IL. Not that all of these machines are likely to be in great running condition but they definitely don't meet my definition of clunker. My parents drove clunkers while raising us. You could see the road going by beneath your feet, the cracked vinyl slashed the backs of your legs, doors tied shut with a jump rope, and none of them were fit to drive on the interstate because they shook and wobbled so violently.
Cash for klunkers is a crock IMO.
-
Almost every one of those vehicles pictures is nicer than any car or truck I have ever owned. I had to take out a small personal loan to purchase an older pickup last fall and would love to have seen any of those on the used market
Exactly. These vehicles were running vehicles that had been on the road and are now permanently taken off. I've driven far worse and never complained.
Cash for klunkers is a crock IMO.
It's not just your opinion, it is a fact.
It would have been much, much more sensible to let the car dealers resell the "clunkers" intact. Like G98 said, people were waving cash and turned down. That would have given the dealers a 1-2 punch on sales- sell a new car, and sell a decent used one that they got for free.
Alas, this program was never about helping the dealers. It was solely about helping the unions and reducing the supply of used vehicles and parts.
-
Well, on the bright side, my leaking oil, rebuilt transmission, fixed everything, drive it everyday clunker just became a collectors item.
-
Well, it only cost a few billion to remove those nice vehicles from the highways. Given the success of the program, I wonder if they're going give people money to demolish their homes and build "greener" houses? Hell, we could turn the economy around and make the US a paradise by completely destroying it.
-
Wow -- those two Dodge trucks look really nice. What a shame...
-
There was a like-new Chevy Silverado, too. =(
-
There was a like-new Chevy Silverado, too. =(
NNNOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Just think...the one who owned the Silverado traded it in for less than what many would have paid for cash for a late model Silverado.
-
This pisses me off, any of those later model used trucks looks better than mine (from the outside anyway).
-
No lie, it's sitting here in the "Clunker" section right next to the black S-10 Blazer:
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmauser98.com%2FSSPX0102.jpg&hash=549290bbd4a214c906feedb6c8ded12767afe66c)
This was the one that had the dealership's mechanic almost in tears - he told me to go see it for myself. :O
-
No lie, it's sitting here in the "Clunker" section right next to the black S-10 Blazer:
GD it! That's the same year model as mine- a '99. That I paid a whole lot more than 4500 for. It's in perfect condition, for chrissakes!
What 'tard traded that in, I wonder
-
What 'tard traded that in, I wonder
Some "tards" that drank the largess koolaid. :mad:
We had about 40-45 of them. Some were a damn shame. There are good people that would have paid good money for some of those dependable vehicles so they could reliably get to work.
-
Yeah, but we can all get rich by destroying valuable assets. Didn't you hear them say so on the Tee Vee?
Hah! I've figured it out now! Obama is born on the planet Bizarro!
-
GD it! That's the same year model as mine- a '99. That I paid a whole lot more than 4500 for. It's in perfect condition, for chrissakes!
What 'tard traded that in, I wonder
If it's really worth more than $4500, at auction, then the dealership was 'tarded too. I doubt somebody that deals in cars would make that kind of mistake but you never know.
-
http://www.autoweek.com/article/20090929/CARNEWS/909299995 (http://www.autoweek.com/article/20090929/CARNEWS/909299995)
Cash-for-clunkers gems: Corvettes, Camaros, Mustangs and one infamous Bentley meet the end of the road
By GREG MIGLIORE
1989 Chevy Corvette
A picture of 1989 Chevy Corvette
There are seven fewer 1989 Corvettes on the road as a result of cash-for-clunkers.
GM
By now, the high-profile casualties of cash-for-clunkers are well documented: a Bentley Continental R and an Aston Martin DB7 Volante from 1997 and a 1985 Maserati Quattroporte all perished under the government-funded incentive program.
But scratching beneath the surface reveals that scores of everyday enthusiast rides such as Mustangs, Camaros and even some Corvettes met ignominious endings by having their engines destroyed and their bodies crushed.
While it’s likely that many of the nearly 700,000 clunkers turned in actually were at the end of their roads, the final report released by the government reveals the demise of plenty of affordable, likely still-fixable cars that could have been enjoyed by collectors of all ages.
Ford’s sales were boosted considerably by the clunkers incentive, and the Focus was the fourth best-seller among new cars bought under the program. But many of its favorite cars of yesteryear were scrapped--most notably, the stable of Mustangs on the nation’s roads is considerably smaller. A total of 1,611 pony cars from 1984 to 2008 were turned in, including--surprisingly--one ’08 model. Yes, many of these were the forgettable rides of the 1980s and ’90s, before the car was remade similar to its original iconic form earlier this decade, but it’s still a considerable figure of sportier-than-average cars taken off the road.
The Blue Oval also saw the end of 107 Taurus SHOs from 1993 to 1999, and a whopping 3,061 Thunderbirds from 1984 to 1995. Stunningly, a 2005 T-Bird, one of the 1950s-styled coupes Ford brought back on a limited basis, also was slated for scrapping.
Luxury cars were not immune to the crusher, either. A 1999 Mercedes C43 AMG, a 2000 Jaguar XK8 convertible and a 1998 BMW Z3 Roadster will not be buffed or polished again. Additionally, two 1991 BMWs, a M3 and a M5 never again will be ultimate driving machines, and a slew of 7-series, including 100 from 1988, are done.
The Continental R was perhaps the single most infamous car taken off the road. In addition to its inglorious clunkers ending, the car also is notable because 70 percent of all Bentleys ever built are still in existence, though that’s a pre-clunkers figure released by the company.
Other top-shelf rides that saw the reaper included a 1989 Maserati 222E and four 1985 Biturbos.
The Cadillac of clunkers was the Escalade, as 72 copies of the hulking, fuel-hungry luxury ute are toast, with 68 of those from the 1999 to 2000 model years. More than a little surprising: a 2006 STS sedan also received a death sentence.
The General Motors brands also lost plenty of rides favored by car guys and gals. Corvette fans will miss 131 versions the sports car from 1984 to 1995, including 34 convertibles. And though the Camaro crowd rejoiced at the car’s return this year, 1,007 of its predecessors are now history, including at least eight from every year from 1984 to 2000. The early ’90s were particularly brutal, with 127 from 1991 and 116 from 1992 getting handed a blind fold and cigarette.
One Camaro sibling, a 1989 20th Anniversary Trans-Am, also a bit unexpectedly was on the list, as was a 2002 Firebird. They’re joined by a 1987 Buick Grand National GNX, an intercooled, turbocharged marvel highly sought after by collectors.
Perhaps a bit less iconic, 61 Pontiac Fieros from 1985 to 1988 were turned over, and one of the ultimate beater cars, the 1986 Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme, was trimmed by 185 models.
The third Detroit-based automaker, Chrysler, was the victim of four of the newest clunker trade-ins. One 300 all-wheel-drive model from 2008, two from 2007 and a Hemi-powered ’05 all won’t live to see what plans Fiat has in store for their maker.
One owner of a 2006 Nissan 350Z also turned over the keys, as did those of two 2006 Roush Stage 3 F-150s. Two 2008 Foose F-150s also were among the customs that had a date with the crusher.
Thirteen Porsches and 28 Alfa Romeos also are off the road.
All told, cash-for-clunkers resulted in almost $2.9 billion in rebate claims and boosted the economy considerably this summer. The nation’s fleet is undoubtedly more fuel-efficient, but fewer Mustangs, Camaros and even the random Bentley means it’s also a bit less fun.
-
Who is crazy enough to turn in those cars? It's sacrilege.
-
Who is crazy enough to turn in those cars? It's sacrilege.
It's hard to imagine how it made economic sense.
I'm sure in many (most?) cases it did. Many of these 'pristine' trucks and SUVS probably had very serious engine or transmission problems.
Some of it was probably ideological - to 'make a stand'.
And the remainder...
Insanity.
-
It's hard to imagine how it made economic sense.
I'm sure in many (most?) cases it did. Many of these 'pristine' trucks and SUVS probably had very serious engine or transmission problems.
Some of it was probably ideological - to 'make a stand'.
And the remainder...
Insanity.
Why am I reminded of Nite Owl's reaction to Rorschach being exploded?
-
Does America have a brand of idiots that believe that a car needs to be replaced every X years, regardless of its state?
Or is this unique to my part of the Old World?
-
Does America have a brand of idiots that believe that a car needs to be replaced every X years, regardless of its state?
Yup. Unfortunately. Most of those tend to lease cars and trade em in every couple of years.
My family tends to run them until they can't run anymore.
-
My parents buy new vehicles every two years, almost to the second. They usually have less than 10K miles on the odometers when traded in or sold outright.
They also pay cash for the new vehicles. My mom has already been approached by somebody to call them when she sells her ragtop Mustang GT next year.
-
Why am I reminded of Nite Owl's reaction to Rorschach being exploded?
Eh? Is this a popular culture reference I'm missing? (https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.armedpolitesociety.com%2FSmileys%2Fdefault%2Fhuh.gif&hash=0eadcd04716f8cbcd3d11b22226c418356ed2de2)
-
Yup. Unfortunately. Most of those tend to lease cars and trade em in every couple of years.
My family tends to run them until they can't run anymore.
MAybe these sort of people played a role in this debacle?
-
My parents buy new vehicles every two years, almost to the second. They usually have less than 10K miles on the odometers when traded in or sold outright.
You can't even get a car decently broken in by that time...
MAybe these sort of people played a role in this debacle?
They certainly helped.
Edit: Although, many of them probably switch cars so often that the cars didn't have time to become "clunkers," and hence probably didn't participate in this program.